CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: Senate Democrats make a fight out of President Bush‘s pick to be U.N. ambassador. Plus, one of America‘s most respected business leaders, former GE chairman Jack Welch, live from Boston.

Let‘s play HARDBALL.

Good evening. I‘m Chris Matthews on the road in Boston. And it is great to be here today for the home opener for the world champion Boston Red Sox. Meanwhile, back in Washington, John Bolton, President Bush‘s nominee to represent the U.S. at the United Nations, faced the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. And Democrats came loaded for bear.

Bolton has been openly critical of the U.N. And his blunt-spoken style has rankled some in the diplomatic community. Is he fit for the job?

From Washington, I‘m joined by two members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee who participated in today‘s hearing, Senator Norm Coleman, Republican of Minnesota, and Senator Bill Nelson, Democrat of Florida.

Let me start with Senator Coleman.

Is John Bolton the right kind of guy to send to the U.N. to represent the United States in these difficult months after our embarrassment with regard to the lack of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the reason we gave to the world and the U.N. for going to war?

SEN. NORM COLEMAN ®, MINNESOTA: Chris, that‘s the president‘s choice. And the president has made the choice. He said yes.

And then you have got to look, is he qualified? He‘s been qualified. He‘s been an undersecretary of international organization. He‘s actually worked pro bono for the U.N. He‘s done nonproliferation stuff right now. This is a time that U.N. needs reform. If the U.N. is to be credible in the future, it has got to clean up the oil-for-food scandal; it has got to clean up the sex abuse in Africa scandal; it has got to clean up the sexual harassment that was not done with by Kofi scandal. This guy knows what to do. He understands the organization. He is pretty straightforward. That‘s exactly what the U.N. needs right now.

Do you that John Bolton, a man who represents the president on arms control and may have had a role with regard to the misinformation we got or misused with regard to going to war with Iraq, is the best person to send back to the world as our spokesperson?

SEN. BILL NELSON (D), FLORIDA: In a word, no. He‘s not the kind of quality nominee that this administration has had in the person of former Ambassador Danforth and former Ambassador Negroponte.

And what we need to be sending as our permanent representative to the United Nations is the best and the brightest. And this is a guy who has made highly inflammatory statements, that there are all kind of questions about him trying to silence intelligence people who disagreed his extremist views. And this is just not who we want to send into the United Nations, when the United States ought to be reaching out to the rest of the world, instead of dissing them.

MATTHEWS: Well, you said extremist views. Give me some of the extremist views of John Bolton.

NELSON: Well, for example, he said that Cuba had a biological warfare program.

You‘ll hear testimony tomorrow that that was one that then he clamped down on the intelligence analysis from the CIA when they disagreed with him. Now, that‘s just simply not the kind of stuff that we need in a representative in the United Nations.

COLEMAN: Chris, can I jump in here?

MATTHEWS: Sure. You‘re in.

COLEMAN: Yes. Yes.

First of all, I have got to tell you that in fact what he said regarding biological weapons was what the intelligence community said he could say. All that stuff was cleared in advance. And that‘s exactly what he said. There‘s no question about that.

Secondly, his radical views is that he called a Kim Jong Il a dictatorial tyrant many times in Seoul. Well, guess what. He is. His radical view is that the U.N. needs reform, that it‘s an organization that has lost a lot of credibility in the past. And he challenged that. That‘s not so radical. I think that‘s the mainstream of America. And, certainly, I think most of the Congress understands.

And the issue that the Democrats raised today had to do with what happened is that there was an intelligence analyst who he felt, Bolton felt very strongly that this guy went behind his back, that this guy, what should have been simply sending out a speech for clearance in the intel community, this guy inserted his own opinion. He did it without telling Bolton. And Bolton was offended by that.

He was offended over process, nothing to do with substance, nothing about quashing anybody because of his policy views. Bolton made it very clear, I didn‘t trust the guy. He violated the process. I made that known. That‘s all that‘s about.

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: Senator Nelson, is not the chief reason we‘re arguing here,

or you‘re arguing, over this nomination is that John Bolton is one of the

most out-there hawks in the administration? If you read his writings, he -

· I listen to everything he says, practically. And the guy put out—he had three more nations on the axis of evil. He was going to put Syria and Libya and Cuba on the axis of evil.

He is much—well, it strikes me—isn‘t that the issue here, gentlemen, that he is more hawkish even perhaps the president?

NELSON: Chris, I want to respond. I‘ll answer your question.

I want to respond to my dear friend Norm Coleman. And he is a dear friend. You can tell where a fellow is going by where he‘s been. And has Mr. Bolton earned this job? He has been the arms negotiator for this country. We have nothing to show for it in four years with a threat that is an imminent threat to the interests of the United States. And that‘s the nuclear weapons in North Korea.

And we can talk about the same thing about Iran. Regarding Iran, he said, I don‘t do carrots, meaning, that he is not going to be in favor of negotiations. He wants to lay down what he want to lay down. And that‘s not the way to get things done in the interest of the United States.

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: Let me just go to Senator Coleman with the same question. I think you‘ve answered my question. It is about ideology. Do you think it is about ideology, Senator Coleman?

COLEMAN: I think that‘s what the opposition is about.

And the bottom line, Bolton said in the hearing, as the ambassador to the United Nations, he articulates the views of the president‘s. That is what he does. Is there any question that he is capable of doing that? None whatsoever. And so here‘s a guy. You‘re right. You‘ve got a guy who, in the past, has said some very tough, very hard things.

And because of his ideology, that he is being opposed. The bottom line is, the president won the election. The president is setting foreign policy. I believe the president believes that the U.N. needs reform. It needs it desperately. We are still dealing with—we haven‘t gotten to the bottom of oil-for-food.

MATTHEWS: Right.

COLEMAN: All those things, prostitution, child rape in Africa. Bolton is a guy the president has asked to carry the ball. He is being opposed because of ideology.

But he made it clear at the hearing today, he‘s going to articulate the views of the president of the United States. He‘s very capable of doing that. And that‘s why he‘s going to get confirmed.

MATTHEWS: Senator Coleman and Senator Nelson, let‘s take a look at one of the heated exchanges in today‘s hearing, when Senator Chris Dodd of Connecticut confronted the nominee, John Bolton, on stories that he tried pressuring, as you—as mentioned earlier—a State Department analyst.

SEN. CHRISTOPHER DODD (D), CONNECTICUT: My problem is this: We‘re suffering terribly. We‘re going to send to the U.N.—we sent the secretary of state to the United Nations to make a case for the presence of weapons of mass destruction.

It was wrong, terrible information. We were damaged terribly by that. And if this is true, that you tried to remove an analyst because you disagreed with their conclusions about this, that is going to hurt us further at the United Nations. That‘s my concern.

JOHN BOLTON, UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE: And, if I could just say, I have never done anything in connection with any analyst‘s views. Nothing.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTHEWS: I want to ask Senator Nelson about another issue with regard to the administration, also Senator Coleman.

Chris Shays, the U.S. congressman from Connecticut, he‘s an independent fellow. We all know that. He has come out basically saying if there‘s another vote on Tom DeLay as majority leader in the House, he won‘t vote for him.

MATTHEWS: OK, I‘ll go to the senator first. He‘s a former House member.

NELSON: Chris, here again, it is radical ideology. It is inflammatory statements.

Listen to what Tom DeLay said after it went all the way up to the United States Supreme Court on the Terri Schiavo thing. And he in effect said, there ought to be a retribution for those judges. Now, that is challenging the very basic separation of powers, checks and balances doctrine of our U.S. Constitution.

MATTHEWS: Do you back—do you back what Senator Lautenberg of New Jersey said, that he was endangering the life, basically, of federal judges? He is basically offering—making it a public threat, because Lautenberg is out there saying he may be violating federal law in that regard?

NELSON: I‘m not going to go that far.

MATTHEWS: OK.

(CROSSTALK)

NELSON: I know commonsense things.

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: OK, Senator Coleman, you used to be a Democrat. And back in your Democrat days, would you be attacking DeLay right now?

COLEMAN: Well, if I was Democrat, I wanted to make it partisan, I would.

But let me—you asked a fair question. I think we‘re pushing on all sides here, Chris, maybe a little too far, whether it‘s my good friend Frank Lautenberg or some of the things that DeLay said about the judges. It is not about retribution. Her obviously had very strong feelings about Terri Schiavo. Many of us did. Many of us did.

And so because of the intensity of the emotion of that, people say a lot of things. But I think we would all be better off if we turned down the rhetoric just a little bit.

(CROSSTALK)

NELSON: Amen to that.

MATTHEWS: Do you think your party was right in going out as far as it did, holding a three-person voice vote in the United States Senate with nobody else around and pushing it through?

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: With Rick Santorum playing chaplain that day, do you think that was healthy for the republic?

COLEMAN: Well, Chris, you know the way the Senate works. We don‘t hold parties by—everything in the Senate is done by unanimous consent. And what was done that day was actually a follow-through of what was done earlier, when we were all there.

MATTHEWS: Right.

COLEMAN: And both sides agreed. So, this done unanimous, in a bipartisan, unanimous approach, at least on the part of the United States Senate.

MATTHEWS: When we come back, NBC White House correspondent David Gregory has an exclusive interview with Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. He‘s where the action is right now.

And, later, Jack Welch, who ran General Electric for 20 years, has a hot new book out. I think it is No. 2 now, “Winning.”

If you think the Sox are hot up here in Boston, baseball is about to heat up in D.C. This Thursday is the home opener for the brand new—here‘s the name of them—the Washington Nationals. And we‘ll be there right out there on the field at RFK with Senators John McCain and Jim Bunning, the senator from Kentucky, who threw no-hitters in both the American and National Leagues.

DAVID GREGORY, NBC WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Chris, today, the president publicly urged Prime Minister Sharon to end the expansion of settlements on the West Bank. But he also praised Sharon for his decision to withdraw from the Gaza Strip.

In a rare interview with NBC News, the Israeli leader said that decision has put Israel on edge.

(voice-over): Israelis are bracing for a violent summer. It‘s not the Palestinians they‘re worried about, but Jewish settlers.

(on camera): Do you expect violence as you pull out of Gaza?

ARIEL SHARON, ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER: I expect that before and during.

GREGORY: The Bush-Sharon summit comes at a time when the Israeli leader is under tremendous pressure here at home. His plan to withdraw from Gaza, uprooting all the Israeli settlers there, has threatened his political standing and his life.

SHARON: One should not underestimate the tension here. The atmosphere here looks like on the eve of a civil war.

GREGORY (voice-over): Sharon himself has received death threats.

(on camera): Do you worry about your life?

SHARON: All my life, I was a defending life of Jews. Now, for the first time, significant steps are taken to protect me from Jews.

GREGORY: Prime Minister, what do you say to your opponents, like Hamas, that effectively say, look, violence works; the Israelis are pulling out of Gaza?

SHARON: We left Gaza or we are leaving Gaza because I felt that I have to make an effort to try and reach peace here.

GREGORY (voice-over): The Bush administration considers the Gaza withdrawal critical to the peace process. But officials also worry Sharon is undermining peace prospects by expanding Jewish settlements in the West Bank.

(on camera): A growing point of friction between the U.S. and Israel can be found just a short drive from Jerusalem, that sprawling settlement known as Maele Atomin (ph). The Sharon government has announced plans to add houses there, a move that is being seen as a direct violation of the Bush administration‘s call to freeze all settlement activity.

(voice-over): Do you intend to freeze settlement activity?

SHARON: It would not be any new Jewish communities, no. We don‘t build there.

GREGORY (on camera): But you‘re adding to some existing communities.

SHARON: People live there. There are not any new communities that are built or added. Arabs live everywhere. Jews live everywhere.

GREGORY (voice-over): Sharon insists that talk of settlements obscures a larger point, that Abu Mazen, the new Palestinian leader, isn‘t meeting his only obligations under the U.S.-backed road map.

SHARON: If he will not act against terror, if terror will continue, I think that it will be very, very hard to move forward.

GREGORY: He says Abu Mazen isn‘t moving fast enough to rein in terror groups and his own security forces.

SHARON: I don‘t think that it‘s only our problem. I think it is a problem of the free world. Of course, we think seriously about all those steps that could save Israel if the Iranians will be able to do it or will do it.

GREGORY: Sharon said he planned to urge President Bush today to set a firm deadline for Iran, which, if violated, would land the issue into the lap of the U.N. Security Council—Chris.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

MATTHEWS: Thank you, David Shuster—David Gregory.

Still ahead, former General Electric chairman and CEO Jack Welch knows a lot about winning. And I‘ll ask him what it takes to win in business and in politics.

You‘re watching HARDBALL on MSNBC.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MATTHEWS: Jack Welch knows about winning. The retired GE CEO is one of the most successful business executives ever. And he continues to write books about what he knows. His latest co-written with his wife, Suzy Welch, is called “Winning,” a playbook of sorts on life in the corporate world.

Welcome, Jack. Welcome back, Jack.

JACK WELCH, FORMER GE CHAIRMAN AND CEO: How are you, Chris?

MATTHEWS: You know, I just want to ask you—this is going to be somewhat argumentative because I don‘t work for you anymore, OK? So, we did go to the game today. I sat in your box. So, I want to make that public.

MATTHEWS: It is? Is that your life mission statement, to win at everything?

(CROSSTALK)

WELCH: Not my life mission statement. But whenever I‘m in the ring, I want to win. Whenever I‘m in the game, I want to win. I want to win with friends. I want my friends to win. Yes. I think it‘s a hell of a lot better than losing.

MATTHEWS: But is it a life?

WELCH: Yes.

I mean, you want your kids to be happy. You want your family to be happy. You want your church to do well. You don‘t want it closed down.

MATTHEWS: Well, let‘s talk about the one we both grew up in, right, the Catholic Church?

WELCH: Yes.

MATTHEWS: You watched what I saw close hand last week. I was lucky to be over there.

And I watched millions of people pay respect to this guy who just passed away. I should not call him a guy, Pope John Paul II; 1.1 billion people in that church, massive administrative responsibilities, massive—

I mean, it‘s a life—it‘s a complete life responsibility if you‘re head of a religion. Do you think he did a good job?

WELCH: Yes.

MATTHEWS: And what was he good about, Pope John Paul II?

WELCH: He really—he really brought his faith to the world. In a way, I think the signature thing did he was bring people together. Look what he did against communism. He changed the Eastern Bloc.

MATTHEWS: Right.

WELCH: He brought those people back into the game.

Look what did he in terms of bringing Third World countries into a faith-based religion. I think the guy had a remarkable story. Now, he wasn‘t my cup of tea from his conservative leanings.

MATTHEWS: Why did so—and I am a big defender of the church, but I want to put this in perspective. And every Roman Catholic watching knows what I‘m going to do right now.

Yes, that‘s all true. And there is a dispute within the church about certain things like married priesthood and things like that. But part of that is a concern. The reason most Catholics are worried about a married priesthood is, they don‘t like the way it‘s going now, too many perverts. Maybe the percentage isn‘t higher than anywhere else, in any other profession, but to have Catholic priests preying on young boys, he didn‘t stop it.

WELCH: That was a horrible time.

MATTHEWS: Cardinal Law up here didn‘t stop it. They covered it up. And then the Catholic Church let Cardinal Law say a mass today for the pope. Here‘s a guy that was covering up, now gets to play a major role in a major liturgy. Do you think that‘s good administration?

WELCH: I didn‘t say that. I said, he was a great leader of a faith. And he did an enormously great job. He did a great job. Look, this is a guy, Chris...

MATTHEWS: But how can...

(CROSSTALK)

WELCH: He had a failure.

MATTHEWS: As Bono, the singer, said, he was the best front man a religion ever had. But besides being the front man, which is fine—that was a major role he played. He did bring the religion to all over the world, 100 and some trips.

WELCH: Right.

MATTHEWS: But did he miss what was going on in the churches themselves? Did he miss this problem?

WELCH: He had an administrative dislocation, if you will, in the church.

But we—but if you look at his record, to hop on this I think is the wrong issue. Obviously, he didn‘t do everything perfectly. Most people don‘t.

MATTHEWS: Right. See, the reason I‘m bringing it up with you is, you‘re an administrator, a brilliant one.

MATTHEWS: People like him. In fact, they like him more than some of his policies. Why is his job approval dropping right now below 50? What‘s going on? Is it the Schiavo, too much Schiavo stuff? Is it gas prices? What is working against him right now?

WELCH: Well, it‘s both of those for sure. I think another thing that he‘s been a bit disappointing in is Social Security.

MATTHEWS: Why is he pushing something that is so difficult and dangerous? I mean dangerous politically.

(CROSSTALK)

WELCH: Well, I don‘t think it was when he started.

I think, for some reason, which I have no idea of, he basically, instead of doing what he normally does, which is lay out a position and sell it like hell, he somehow became somebody else. And he said, what do you think? I‘m looking for ideas.

MATTHEWS: Yes.

WELCH: And he lost the momentum.

MATTHEWS: Well, let me—how about the idea of borrowing $2 trillion from the Chinese and the Japanese to pay our Social Security checks?

I mean, if I were a senior right now retired and I realized that my check was coming via Tokyo and Beijing, because that‘s where we‘re borrowing the money, I would get nervous about that money still coming. And he says, don‘t worry out there. But all the time he‘s saying, I have got to borrow $2 trillion to pay those checks now from abroad. As an administrator, would you think that was good policy?

Well, I‘m saying—and this $2 billion, that‘s a red herring. That money to get on a sound footing, to change the game, is well spent money. We‘re going to have trillions of dollars spent on Social Security.

MATTHEWS: Borrowing from abroad at a time the dollar is weak.

WELCH: You‘re not borrowing from abroad.

MATTHEWS: The T-bills we‘re selling right now are going abroad.

That‘s the net fact.

WELCH: Not particularly for that issue. They‘re going abroad in general.

MATTHEWS: The president want to increase the federal deficit to pay for this new Social Security..

(CROSSTALK)

WELCH: Transfer payments.

MATTHEWS: Well, why does the United States have an interest in borrowing money to pay benefits to seniors who have a right to those benefits? Can‘t we cover our own responsibilities without borrowing from abroad? Why does he have to come up with a program that requires huge federal borrowing from abroad?

WELCH: He has got a program that—that debt that‘s involved here, all he‘s doing is moving it forward, OK, the same debt that is owed to people over the next 30 years. That‘s all he‘s doing to get young people. Young people shouldn‘t...

MATTHEWS: But all that money is money we have to pay back at current interest rates starting now. The minute we borrow the money, we have to start paying back all this money to the Chinese and the Japanese for borrowing those trillions of dollars to change a system which won‘t necessarily be fixed by this. You know the problem with Social Security better than I do, too many old people, not enough worker bees.

WELCH: And if you don‘t get people in a first step into investing on their own to grow a pie in it of their own, you are never going to solve the problem.

MATTHEWS: You like the idea he‘s pushing?

WELCH: I like—I like—I don‘t know the idea. That is what I‘m arguing about. He has not told me what his real plan is.

MATTHEWS: He wants to let us take a portion of our payroll taxes and invest it in equity.

WELCH: Oh, I know that piece. But he hasn‘t told us how he‘s going to do it and he‘s asking for information from everyone as he travels around the country. That‘s not the George Bush that got elected. The George Bush that got elected had a position.

MATTHEWS: And, still ahead, HARDBALL‘s David Shuster has an update on some of the wounded soldiers—and this is real—we met at Walter Reed Hospital. We‘re thrilled by that story. And, after a long recovery, they‘re learning things they didn‘t think they would ever be able to do.

MATTHEWS: Across the street from where we are, in fact, across the river, right outside here, the Charles River, is a place called Harvard University. They pronounce it here, Harvard. The president of Harvard, right, his name is Larry Summers.

WELCH: Right.

MATTHEWS: I‘m sure he would find your chapter on the advantages of candor very helpful. Here‘s a guy that said what he thought about the possibility that the sexes are unequal in terms of aptitude in math and sciences. For speaking out what he thought might be worth investigating, he is practically canned. So why do you say candor helps people? Why is it good for people? He was candid.

WELCH: Well, that was outrageous. That was outrageous.

MATTHEWS: But it was candid?

WELCH: Yes. Hold it.

What that was a professor—was a university president raising very real issues that should have been accepted. Now, if Larry...

MATTHEWS: You would not have fired somebody that said something like that at GE?

WELCH: Not at all. And there‘s a chapter in here on crisis management. If I had to have any criticism of Larry was, he never should have started apologizing at a rapid rate.

MATTHEWS: Let me ask you a question, since you‘re a candid guy. If he had come out and say, women, I think, we ought to test this, may be better than men intellectually at math and science, would he have gotten into trouble?

WELCH: I don‘t think so.

MATTHEWS: Why not?

WELCH: Because it would have been not politically incorrect.

MATTHEWS: What? Right. And what do you mean by that? In other words, it‘s OK to say women are smarter than men, but not that possibly that women aren‘t as smart as men?

WELCH: Perhaps.

(LAUGHTER)

MATTHEWS: You chicken. You say, chapter two, be candid.

WELCH: And I thought Larry Summers made a very reasonable statement and he got hung by a bunch of people that had no right to do it. But he did not stake out his position.

MATTHEWS: Of all the presidents you‘ve watched, or governors, who do you think has what you would consider good business sense and good business logic, who thinks hard and makes big, tough decisions? Would you say Harry Truman? Would you say Reagan? Would you say FDR? Who would you say was a tough leader?

(CROSSTALK)

WELCH: I didn‘t know some of the great early ones, but you have to give FDR enormous credit. Look what he did with this country in a total disaster. And he brought it out. Now, I don‘t—I didn‘t know FDR.

WELCH: But everything about—all I remember about FDR is my mother crying over the ironing board when I came home from school one day...

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: OK. Let me ask you, Ronald Reagan, it said, didn‘t know anybody personally. He made the joke, he didn‘t know the Cabinet members - - but he knew why he was president, the big picture.

WELCH: He did.

MATTHEWS: Stop the communists, defeat them, stop the growth of government, cut taxes. Every cab driver knew this stuff. Jimmy Carter knew everybody personally, knew all the details, but he did not have that bigger vision. What‘s more important?

WELCH: But he knew how to go through that screen and reach into people‘s living rooms.

MATTHEWS: OK. Bush took to us war over the issue of weapons of mass destruction. He‘s later said, well, that wasn‘t the real reason. The real reason is to liberate these countries and create democracy in the Middle East and shake things up. Do you think that was artifice?

WELCH: No.

MATTHEWS: Or was that honest speaking? Was that candid?

WELCH: I think he gave it every day an honest, straightforward...

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: So you believe he believed.

WELCH: I believe to my toes that he believed.

MATTHEWS: Well, why didn‘t he fire the people that gave him bad information? Why is he putting John Bolton up—why is John Bolton up for U.N.?

OK, let me ask you this about John Kerry. You say he lost the election because of personality. But how can you—you‘ve worked with people so many years. You‘ve had people who had abrasive personalities, but you, you‘re a good producer. I‘m going to give you another month here. I‘m going to give you another year.

Do people change? Can you fix a problem about your basic personality in life?

WELCH: I think, in the political world, it is tough, because people get an impression of you through the tube. And it‘s tough to change.

MATTHEWS: But can you change? You‘ve had managers you had to change, you wanted to save, those middle 70 you talked about, not the 10 percent losers, but those middle 70.

WELCH: Oh, yes.

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: Can you get a guy who is abrasive to be nicer?

WELCH: It is tough.

MATTHEWS: It is tough.

WELCH: It is tough to change fundamental personality.

MATTHEWS: I think Nixon was Nixon. I think Clinton was Clinton. I think the problems they bring to the White House—and we know them all—they kept.

MATTHEWS: Let me ask you about Tiger woods. What has this guy got? I remember the first time he won the Masters, and he put it on the green from the other fairway. Was that the 17th hole he did that? This time, he chipped that one.

WELCH: That 16th hole may be the greatest golf shot in history, under the gun.

MATTHEWS: We‘re watching it.

WELCH: Under the gun.

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: Well, watch this. Look at the angle. How—you‘re a golfer. How does anybody plan that shot?

It has been a long road, by the way, to recovery for American soldiers injured in Iraq and Afghanistan. When we come back, we‘ll get an emotional update on some of them. This is great stuff. We‘re doing great things. Look at these guys.

You‘re watching HARDBALL, only on MSNBC.

WELCH: Oh, my God.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MATTHEWS: Welcome back to HARDBALL. I‘m Chris Matthews.

In December, HARDBALL spent several days with disabled veterans at Walter Reed Army Hospital in Washington. Last week, some of those same amputees were among the 350 disable military veterans who participated in a winter sports clinic in Colorado. It was an inspiring and transforming week.

As part of our special coverage, “For the Brave,” all week long, here‘s HARDBALL correspondent David Shuster.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

DAVID SHUSTER, NBC CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Oscar Olguin is 19 years old. Six months ago in Iraq, an insurgent bomb ripped apart his right leg.

SPC. OSCAR OLGUIN, WOUNDED IN IRAQ: I was conscious the whole time, which was kind of bad. But, I saw my boot on the—like my boot, it just tipped over and fell on the floor.

ADRIAN MALDONADO, VA OUTREACH SPECIALIST: It boosts their morale, boosts their character. It lets them know that, hey, they can do stuff and overcome those obstacles that they have in their life.

SHUSTER: Jim Sursley in Vietnam lost every limb but his right arm.

And he remembers the questions he used to ask.

JIM SURSLEY, CMDR., DISABLED AMERICAN VETERANS: Will you ever be able to be employed? Will someone love you? Will you be able to be married and have children and just lead a normal life? And, as time progresses and to have these kinds of events that challenge you, it just reaffirms that those things are certainly possible.

SHUSTER: And all disabled veterans can participate, regardless of their level of disability. At the end of the day, the conversations are like those at any other ski resort.

SHUSTER: Thanks to sponsors and volunteers, this clinic, now in its 19th year, has grown. And what the wounded soldiers accomplish on the mountain sometimes leads the able-bodied at a loss for words.

RICHARD TUCKER, VICE PRESIDENT, BAXTER HEALTHCARE: Then I pull up next to him. And I say, Andy, I said, you‘re going to have to go on without me. I said, I just can‘t keep up with you. And he had a grin from ear to ear. And I think that grin...

SHUSTER: Everybody seem to know these veterans still face setbacks. Some have tough rehab sessions ahead or are especially vulnerable to loneliness and depression.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hold it up right here and get set.

SHUSTER: But the week marks an important step.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Come on, Nastra (ph). You can do it.

OLGUIN: Never did this before. Never skied before. Now I‘m going everywhere. Go to concerts, dance the mosh pit. Go to clubs. Like I say, life isn‘t over. There‘s a lot to life.

SHUSTER: And it‘s something many of the instructors and support staff can relate to.

(on camera): Nearly all of the 700 at this event paid their own way and many of them are disabled American veterans, whose stories are just as inspiring as the first-time participants. We‘ll have their stories for you tomorrow.

MATTHEWS: If you would like more information on the National Disabled Veterans Winter Sports Clinic, can go to va.org or miracles.dav.org.

Join us again tomorrow night at 7:00 Eastern for more HARDBALL. And, later this week, our guests will include John McCain, Bob Dole, Lesley Stahl and Jane Fonda. They‘ll all be here this week in person.

Right now, it‘s time for the “COUNTDOWN” with Keith.

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

Content and programming copyright 2005 MSNBC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Transcription Copyright 2005 Voxant,Inc. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No license is granted to the user of this material other than for research. User may not reproduce or redistribute the material except for user‘s personal or internal use and, in such case, only one copy may be printed, nor shall user use any material for commercial purposes or in any fashion that may infringe upon MSNBC and Voxant, Inc.‘s copyright or other proprietary rights or interests in the material. This is not a legal transcript for purposes of litigation.